LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDD17413S4 







^Pii^*' ^^^ 














^•^ 
•^^ 























W^" 



¥ , fZ 5^ a 



\. 
















,V 



VT'' .G 










C>^ "a^'t* 



.0" t- 



-ov^^ 



"THE HIGHER LAW," 

IN ITS ArrLICATION TO 

THE FDGITIYE SLAVE BILL.. 



K E T I E W 



OF 



DR. JOHN C. LORD'S SERMON 



ON THE 



DUTIES MEN OWE TO GOD 



AND TO 



GOVERNMENTS, 



BY 



JOHN NEWELL, 



LICENTIATE OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 



" He is a freeman whom the truth makes free,' 
" All else are slaves beside." 



SYRACUSE : 
PRINTED AT THE JOURNAL OFFICE. 

1851. 



"THE HIGHER LAW," 

IN ITS APPLICATION TO 

THE FUelTIVE SLAVE BILL 



II E V I E W 



OF 

DR. JOHN C. LORD'S SERMON, 

ON THE 

DUTIES MEN OWE TO GOD 

AND TO 

GOVERNMENTS, 

BY 

JOHN NEWELL, 
» > 

LICENTIATE OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 



" He is a freeman whom the truth makes free,' 
*' All else are slaves beside." 



SYRACUSE : 

PRINTED AT THE JOURNAL OFFICE. 
1851. 



EEVIEW. 



The design of Dr. Lord's Sermon, on Matt. xxii. 17 — 21, is 
avowed to be an exhibition of the duties men owe to God 
and to Governments, and then the application of the truth 
elicited to the law regarding the Fugitive Slave, the vexed 
question of the present times. Whether the author has treat- 
ed his subject in the order he has thus proposed to himself, 
and what is the result of his demonstration, fall under our 
consideration. The text chosen is applicable to a portion of 
the subject assigned, and the strength of the argument de- 
pends upon the proper exposition of the passage selected. 

Few will deny that there is some truth in this sermon, but 
many will see that the truth is obviously misapplied, while, 
from the disordered array of statements, they may be unable 
to detect the fallacy, or averse to trouble themselves about 
it. Jt would have been more to the learned authors credit 
if he had said less and said it better, and thus haVe saved 
himself recrimination because of logical blunders and loose 
epithets. 

We may, at present, omit the appropriate but highly-colored 
preface, and come at once to his argument, for it is the mind, 
and not the imagination, that must be influenced to convic- 
tion on such a subject. Up to page 8, the way is being pre- 
pared, the fieid cleaved for the discussion of th^ question ; 
and there these words occur : " appeals have been made to a 
higher law, as a justification not merely of a neglect to aid 
in enforcing a particular statute, but of an open and forcible 
resistance by arms ;" again, " The achwwleged principle that 
the ia V of God is supreme, and when in direct conflict with 



any mere human enactment renders it nugatory, has been 
used," &LG. ; and again : " It is high time to determine whether 
one of the highest duties enforced by the gospel, obedience to 
the law of God as supreme, can be made to justify a violent 
resistance to the late enactment of Congress." An important 
acknowledgment is here made — there is a higher law — the 
supreme law of God ; and when in direet conflict with any 
mere human enactment it renders it nugatory. The words 
direct and mere are now marked by italics, because it is de- 
sirable to know the force of these adjectives, and difficult to 
apprehend what conflict could be indirect, or what enactment 
could be merely human, while the government that enforces 
it is by the author supposed to be an ordinance of God. One 
would likewise wish to know why he leaves out in page 9, to 
determine why neglect to aid in enforcing a particular statute 
is wrong, as well as violent resistance ; why, when the two 
distinct cases occur, he fuses them into one and deals with 
neglect and not consenting as he does with violent resistance, 
or omits it altogether ? Did it not occur to him as a case 
properly before him, and worthy of consideration, whether or 
not a citizen of delicate conscience, considering the authority 
of the law of God to be infringed upon by the late enactment, 
might not, without show of resistance, rightly demur in carry- 
ing out principles which, when made law, outrage his belief? 
And here it may be as well to state, that our author all along 
deals with the extreme case, that of violent resista;ice, for- 
getting or omitting that it is possible to discharge our duty 
both to God and man by not consenting to what is wrong or 
doubtful, and that the very essence of his text is that we 
should discharge our duties to governments and our duty to 
God simultaneously ; that the two are united ; and that cases 
may arise wherein human authority overturns or sets aside 
the supreme law of God, and then we should " obey God 
rather than man," for the all-important clause in the passage, 
and that by the light of which the other is to be explained 
is — " and to God the things that are God'€." 



Having thus evaded a most interesting topic, under the 
head of " duties," our author deals with an extreme case 
throughout, and turns to the text for confirmation or eluci- 
dation of the statements quoted or yet to be made. 



" Our duties to Government flow out of our relation to the 
Supreme Governor," and these are enjoined in Scripture. 
This is correct, and the condition of the Jews is properly 
stated ; but the doctrine that follows is unfairly deduced 
from the passage. If the reader will compare with the text 
the correlate passage in Matt, xvii, 24—27, where Christ hints 
at the injustice of the Roman power, that it was obtained by 
might over right, by aggressive war and lawless oppression, 
over a nation that should have owned no foreign yoke, he 
will find that he tells Peter, whom he orders to pay tribute, 
the principle upon which he renders unto Caesar the things 
that are Caesar's. In the text before us there is no principle 
stated, as Dr. Lord avers, but duty is enjoined ; in the other 
place we have the true principle upon which tribute money 
was to be paid, and that is — '' Lest we offend them." In the 
xvii of Matt, the principle is laid down with the practice ; 
in xxii of Matt, the duty only; but Dr. Lord says, page 10, 
that, in the latter place, Christ states "the true principle on 
which the obedience of the citizen is demanded by govern- 
ment." It is, however, by referring to the former passage that 
the principle is found. Now, does our author mean to assert 
that the words "Lest we offend them," or "for wrath's 
sake," express the true principle on which obedience is 
rendered to the authority of the government, or to parental 
authority, the prototype of the magistratical. The true princi- 
ple is a higher and a nobler one, " for conscience sake," which 
obtains when the authority is morally binding and our obli- 
gation to obey is perfect. True, Christ's principle does not 
justify resistance, but wisheth peace, and to give offence to 
none ; but it is the very lowest in the scale of motives to 



submit to authority, in fact it does not recognize the moral 
character of the government at all. " Lest we offend them" 
can be capable of no higher application than, for our own 
safety and interest and the weal of the church, we do so ; 
that the " powers that be " may not treat us as rebels and 
crush us in our infancy. 



Dr. L. has thus started upon an erroneous deduction from 
his text, for it is plain, by comparing the two passages, that 
our Saviour does not give the " true principle " on which the 
obedience of the citizen is demanded, but only gives the true 
reason why he and other's of his nation should at least pay 
taxes. But this is not all that is unfairly put at the outset. 
" The impress of Caesar upon the penny Was proof that the 
Romans possessed the government of Judea de facto, and 
therefore to be obeyed as the supreme authority in all civil 
enactments ; while any attempt to interfere with the religious 
principles or practices of the Jews might be conscientiously 
resisted." Because of the actual existence of authority it is 
therefore to be obeyed. What then is the difference between 
de facto and de jure ; between actual and rightful possession 
of authority ? And is there to be no distinction between the 
obedience rendered to the one and to the other ? Why, at 
all, is the distinction made, if it be of no moment, and a dif- 
ference in kinds of submission spoken of in God's word — • 
"not only for wrath's sake, but also for conscience sake?'^ 
The Romans held the reins of government actually, but not 
rightfully ; by might and not by right : and does not Christ 
here virtually make a distinction between obedience to right- 
ful and to actual authority in the clause, " Lest we offend 
them?" Are those who know the origin of the Roman govern- 
ment, to be told that the marauder's authorit}^ the bandit's 
rule, Satanic power are to be obeyed and honored equally with 
rightful, lawful government ; that, although there be a dis- 
tinction in regard to the character of the powers, there is to 



be none in the character of the obedienco. ? And a^'.-iin, the 
Roman power was to be obeyed in all civil enactments, while 
any attempt to interfere with the religious principles ol' ih(j 
Jews might be resisted. Why use «//, the unlimited trim, 
which is in the next clause to be limited ; why mishS^d in tlu; 
first instance and bewilder in the succeeding ? Now attempt- 
ed interference could only be by a civil enactment of some 
kind or other, therefore, according to our author, they were 
to be obeyed in all, and resisted in some of their orders. 
What absurdity ! Are the civil and ecclesiastical authorities 
in the author's mind confused ; jurisdictions distinct inter- 
mingled ? Whatever command the Stateissues is certainly 
civil, and bears its stamp, and in the case alone where the 
ecclesiastical and civil rules are vested in the chief magis- 
trate can such a state of things arise ; then may the irover- 
nor interfere in ecclesiastical matters, and if so, he oversteps 
his peculiar or appropriate jurisdiction, and he may be re- 
sisted. 

But this matter must not take away our attention from the 
acknowledged principle that the law of God is supreme — a 
truth which we expect to find carried out in this sermon. 
The attentive reader or hearer pauses to inquire why the 
Doctor has abandoned this principle so soon, without lurther 
application ; it seems a good one, and this matter might be 
cleared up by the light of it. Here is a higher law, and 
there is slavery ; if slavery be at variance with this higher 
law, then, by an acknowledged principle, the Fugitive Slave 
Bill is rendered nugatory. But without disposing of this, 
he would have us believe that governments without a char- 
acter, if they only exist, are to be obeyed in all civil enact- 
ments, while, &c. ; forgetting that he has admitted, by the 
f.cknowledged principle, that these civil enactments may be 
rendered nugatory by conflicting with the supreme law, and 
putt'n?; forth iv eery vague language a doctrine that few will 



10 

dispute, that on the assumption of ecclesiastical rule by civil 
powers, they may be conscientiously resisted. The point was 
and still is, to show the duty of subjects under a government 
whose statute or statutes are opposed, or by many considered 
to be at Variance with, the supreme law. 

"We take the ground," says Dr. L., page 10, " that the 
action of civil governments within their appropriate juris- 
diction is final and conclusive upon the citizen." This ground, 
however, is at variance with the acknowledged principle 
that human enactments are rendered nugatory by being at 
variance with the supreme law. This common ground, on 
which it is pleasant to meet with him, he vacates for a posi- 
tion of his own which is unscriptural and at variance with 
his own admitted belief. The action of governments, as 
such, cannot be final and conclusive, be above appeal and 
irremediable, if it be that there is a higher law with which 
they should quadrate. And the conclusion of this sentence 
shows that Dr. L.'s aim is to get clear of the higher law ; 
from his former standing he must depart, with his own state- 
ment he must conflict, when he says, forgetting his acknowl- 
eged principle, " that to plead a higher law to justify dis- 
obedience to a human law, the subject matter of which is 
within the cognizance of the State, is to reject the authority 
of God himself;" but if that which is within the cognizance 
of the State, w^hich lies within the range of its appropriate 
jurisdiction, be in contrariety with the supreme law, it is 
rendered nugatory, and, consequently citizens are justifiable 
in pleading this higher law^ against the contrary enactment, 
rendered nugatory by its hostility to the divine law ; if, in 
itself, it is nugatory by its conflicting character, surely dis- 
obedience is justifiable, or rather obedience is unnecessary to 
a worthless and improper law ; and to render obedience 
argues but little for the moral and intellectual character of 
subjects. The assumption, that the action of civil govern- 



11 

ments is final and conclusive in their appropriate jurisdic- 
tion, is thus shown to be false, if there exists ahiglicr law of 
appeal ; and the inference that to plead a higher law to 
justify disobedience &c., is at variance with a previous ad- 
mission. In fact, to plead a higher law to justify disobe(li(;nce 
is as fair as to plead that same supreme law to justify 
obedience ; in both cases the supreme authority of God is 
owned. In disobeying what is rendered nugatory by heaven's 
decree, we trifle with no authority that is valuable, but 
worthless ; while we do, even in our disobedience, obey the 
authority of Him who hath said, " Them that honor me I 
will honor." The supreme law is the law of God, not the 
civil enactment ; he permits none of the "powers that be " 
to occupy the place of absolute authority ; they are by Him 
ordained and permitted, and to Him are accountable, because 
of His law. Knowing this, we cannot believe that if they 
transgress the bounds He has set them, or forget His high 
rule, we have no privilege of dissent, that whether they act 
against light or not, whether they own God or disown Him, 
we are not at liberty to reject their authority, but must obey. 
Christians, who profess to serve God and obey him, would do 
well to consider before they give credence to such extrava- 
gant sentiments. If Dr. L. had not admitted that the law of 
God is supreme, so that it can nullify human laws, if he had 
not acknowledged thus, " that the powers that be" are moral 
subjects, amenable to this law wherever it has come, we had 
had no controversy with him ; but it is impossible for him 
not to see that the supreme law is intended for man in his 
relative capacities, and extends to every relation, through all 
the ramifications of class to the ends of the world; that it 
cares for men's honor, their lives, their property, their con- 
duct as fathers and children, as masters and servants, as rulers 
and subjects, and that States best discharge their duty by 
ruling in the fear of God, setting His law openly before them 
as their directory. 



12 

He must see, too, that they may disregard it or they may 
observe — that the heathen nations not having this law are 
a law unto themselves ; that professedly Christian nations, 
who own not this law, but act as if it did not exist, place them- 
selves on a level with the heathen nations. But states, 
are, by the very fact of the existence of this law among 
them, moral subjects, and judgments are denounced against 
such as do not rule in righteousness ; — just as men are moral 
and accountable subjects, whether or not they regard God's 
law, so are nations moral subjects, whether they hear or 
forbear; — and just as the moral character of the individual 
is known by his observance or non-observance of this law, 
so is the moral character of the nation known by the ac- 
knowledgment or disowning of the Supreme law. The im- 
moral man owns no check, no higher law in his practice — 
disregards it, obeys it not ; the nation that pays no respect 
to that law is immoral in its character likewise. Seeing they 
are moral subjects, "the powers that be " may either be re- 
bellious and be visited accordingly, or be observant of this 
supreme law, copying its dictates, owning its authority, and 
thus moral in their conduct. Where this law exists, nations 
should be ruled by it ; where it does not, the light of nature 
and expediency are all that are left to guide them in their 
enactments. Now, it will occur to every reader of this ser- 
mon, that D-r. Lord has omitted altogether this important 
matter— Me character of the government : — according to its 
character, moral or immoral, so is the obedience that is due, 
just as in the family circle the authority of the father is only 
fully obligatory, when he rules his house well, in the fear of 
the Lord, — his laws are only binding when they are right, 
and in conformity with the higlier law of God. There is 
such a thing as abuse of the parental as of the magistratical 
authority, and, in either case, the nature of the submission 
due is in accordance with the character of i he authority exer- 
cised. Dr. Lord enjoins full submission to "the powers that 
be,"without giving us their character. In quoting, at page 11, 



13 

the xiii of Rom., he omits very disingenuously the cliaracter 
of those to whom submission is due: "For rulers are 
not a terror to good works but to evil." He tells of the ex- 
istence of the authority, but omits its character ; and in eve- 
ry passage in Scripture where conscientious submission is 
enjoined, the character of the ordinance is explainrri. See 
1 Pet. ii: 13, 14. The rulers there spoken of are sent "for 
the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of those that 
do well," which shows to us that the words in these passages 
find not their proper exemplification in the days of Nero, 
the most flagitious and wanton of tyrants, whose character 
is the very opposite to the description of the Holy Spirit, by 
Paul and by Peter;— while Christians are enjoined to live 
peaceably and recognize the ordinance, yet the passages re- 
ferred to ascend much higher, even to the exhibition of magis- 
tracy as it ought to exist, of rulers such as God would have, 
and of the duties of subjects under those governors^ whose 
authority is sanctioned by the Almighty. 

From the xiii of Rom., Dr. Lord's deduction is " obedience 
to governments, in the exercise of their legitimate power, is 
a religious duty positively enjoined by God himself" This 
is by far too general an inference from the premises. Obe- 
dience may be of two kinds "for wraths sake," or "lest we 
offend," and for "conscience sake" when we support and obey. 
Rom. xiii : 5. In the one case, the ordinance is immoral and, 
lest we suffer, we yield only that passive submission which 
amounts to being quiet and peaceable citizens, taking no 
part with corrupt institutions ; and, this is all that could be 
required of the then Christians, or any Christian under 
an immoral government. In the other case, the obedience 
for conscience sake is rendered to a moral constitution, fram- 
ing its laws according to the Supreme law, and owning this 
as Supreme. The inference is thus too general, because the 
character of the government' and of the rulers to whom sub- 



14 



mission is due, is omitted. Does the clause in the legitimate 
exercise of their powers, limit the character of the govern- 

jnent or does it only limit them to their own territory ? It 

seems to me that it is synonymouns with appropriate ju- 
risdiction in the author's mind; at all events, it is ambigu- 
ous, for that there power be legitimate, it must conform to 
some law. What law ? The law of their own Constitution, 
which is not superior to them, being subject to their emen- 
dations? This cannot be. It must be by conformity to the 
Higher Law that they are legitimate. Who gives them their 
power ? God. To Him are they accountable as moral subjects 
for the exercise of it, and when thus appointed and ordering 
their enactments, obedience is due. But when not so ap- 
pointed, and when not exercising authority legitimately, 
what difference is made, what distinction is observable in 
obedience ?. Can God be said to ordain those Governments — 
powers that are immoral — or does he at all sanction them in 
their disregard of his authority ? Does he sanction evil — or- 
dain it, or does he only permit it? He only permits the ex- 
istence of immoral powers. 

Who does not see that it depends altogether on the char- 
ter of the institution, whether it be of God or not, and that 
obedience is to be rendered according as the answer is 
found. The character of the government and the character 
of submisssion due are in perfect keeping, and the perfection 
of both arises from avowed obedience to the Supreme Law. 
If the government own and obey this, then we should delight 
to support and obey the government. Dr. Lord's inference 
here will not do, it is to large in its embrace, for the annexed 
assertion that " obedience is a religious AuXy positively en]o\n- 
ed by God himself." Dr. L. is too positive in his assertions, 
he gives no reason for his averments, but God does, he tells 
the reason why obedience is due, in those passages of Scrip- 
ture where submission is commanded. 



15 

In the body of the discourse we have four propositions 
which should bear upon our duly to God and to man. It is 
strange that this order is inverted by the author, and lirst, 
dutij to man is referred to, then duty to God. Tliese four 
propositions throw no additional light upon what has been 
already advanced, they rather "darken counsel by words 
without knowledge." Instead of sliowing the duty owed to 
government by those who suppose it to decree inic^uity in re- 
gard to slavery, and how obedience to it is compatible with 
our duty to God, we are treated with general truths proposed 
in a vague form. 



*■ First ; — Government is a divine Constitution, established at 
the beginning by the Creator, which exists of necessity and is of 
petyetiial obligation.^' Here we have unqualified statements, 
Government — we are not told *of what kind or character. 
It may apply to the magistratical or the parental, to the 
government of Satan or the power of the human tyrant. 
Government, w^e conclude, of all forms, is a divine Constitu- 
tion.: — the author means mstitution, surely, the appoint- 
ment preceding the combination, the rule of rectitude for 
the society to be organized, preceding its organization, the 
higher law being imprinted on man's heart,in his state of inno- 
cence before the primitive confederation existed. " Which 
(constitution or government) exists of necessity," saith 
our author, whether the necessity be absolute, moral, or natu- 
ral, he does not state ; but, be that as it may, the government 
is of "perpetual obligation." " Perpetual" means everlasting. 
Is there any government perpetual but the divine, any form 
of power of perfect and perpetual obligation but this ? The 
author means of course magistracy is a moral ordinance of 
God, but why could he not say so ; seeing that this is the 
plain deduction from the Scripture passages. " Men are 
born under law, saith he, both as respects the law of God and 
the enactments of States." Fallen men are under bondage to 



16 

the law of God, so are some under bondage by enactments 
of State, and from either bondage should man be free. 
Again; ^'By the ordination of the Supreme Law, they owe allegi- 
ance to the country of their birth, and are naturally and 
unavoidably the subjects of its government ; their consent to 
this is neither asked nor given ! ! How then do they consent 
at all, if consent is not given? Though swearing to sup- 
port the Constitution, is the consent not asked and given ; are 
they forced to submit against their will ; are the men ma- 
chines, passive agents in the power of government. The 
Dr. certainly must explain himself, for really this is either 
insulting to the community or unintelligible to common read- 
ers. " Their choice, says he, can only respect the mode or 
form, never the fact or actual existence of the government :" 
but by the preceding statements, they have no choice at all, 
for their consent is neither ^sked nor given, and when con- 
sent is not^ given, certainly there can be no choice, their 
pleasure is never consulted, it is put upon them by God, and 
there is no chance of evading the imposition! The Israel- 
ites, born in Egypt under the tyranny of Pharaoh, were natu- 
rally and unavoidably subjects of the government, and ac- 
cording to our author, in duty bound to submit ; they had no 
choice but slavery. That was the actual state of things to 
them ; and if they wc: e naturally and unavoidably subjects 
and so born to obey, would it not be treason in them, as Dr. 
L. preaches, against the ordinance of God to attempt to sub- 
vert the government actually existing, by endeavouring after 
a different form ? Were they not rejecting the authority of 
God, in seeking for deliverance from the " mode " of that 
government wherein they were naturally and unavoidably 
ruled by hard taskmasters ? If there is no choice as to the 
fact of government, but submission, which we are in duty 
bound to render, then surely to seek for amelioration or 
change, is derogatory to the appointment of Him by whose 
will we were born under it. If actual existence secures the 



17 

obligation of a power, to attempt diirerent forms or modes 
is virtually to reject the existing autliority, and in so doing 
to set at naught the authority of God Himself If so, then, 
Americans, it was treason in you to strike for this Constitu- 
tion, which Dr. Lord is so anxious so uphold in its iniquity. 
The arguments he uses in abetting slavery when carried out, 
convert the name of patriot into traitor, and stigmatize as 
rebels against God, the Pilgrim Fathers and their successors. 
Such absurdity is scarcely worth exposing, the wonder is 
how sane men can swallow such extravagances. " Mutual 
compact,'' the author proceeds to say, " is a figment of the imag- 
ination, without icarr ant from the Word of God, and contradict- 
ed hy all the facts in the case'' Nay ! but mutual compact is 
necessary, is in accordance with the divine institution, and 
is corroborated by facts. What is the American Constitu- 
tion but a inutual compact, and will Dr. L. call this a figment 
of imagination ? " We might as well affirm that men agree 
to be born and be subject to their parents," &c.; but this is 
not a parallel case, for the authority existed here previously, 
though not exercised till children were born. In the 
case of the American Commonwealth, as of every civil 
organization, at its commencement, its authority did not ex- 
ist until the confederation was formed. All these statements 
to elucidate the first proposition are absurd in the extreme ; 
if intended to establish his proposition, they do not do so ; if 
supposed to spring from it.Dr. L. must first prove his proposi- 
tion, then state his corollaries, but both the proposition and 
the following statements are equally inexplicable, taken as 
they appear, and it is questionable if the author saw clearly 
whither they lead him. 



The second proposition, though in itself true, is treated 
more loosely than the first. " Governments have jurisdic- 
tion over men in all affairs which belong peculiarly to the 
present life; in all the temporal relations which bind societies. 



18 

communities, and families together, in respect to all rights 
of person and property, and their enforcement by penalties." 
Now, let any candid reader follow the author is his elucida- 
tion of this proposition, and say if the succeeding statements- 
contain an exposition of the duties which governments have 
to perform : and mark, that the author, at the outset, pro- 
posed to himself to state the duties of subjects, whilst he 
mentions here and on the first topic, the position and duties 
of governments. " General rules,^^ he goes on to say, " are 
indeed laid down in the Scriptures, for the regulation of human 
conduct. But, God has ordained the powers that be to appoint 
their own municipal laws, to regulate and enforce existing re- 
lations, aud to execute judgment under such forms of admin- 
istration as shall be suitable to the circumstances of the people, 
and chosen by themslves.^^ "Municipal" is surely an improper 
epithet in this connection, and may be left out ; and we may 
sum up thus : God has ordained the powers that be to ap- 
point their own laws, to regulate and enforce existing rela- 
tions, and execute judgment under such forms of administra- 
tion as are suitable and selected. Now, the ^'powers that be,'' 
are forms of executive administration ; let us read it so. — 
God has ordained the " powers that be " to appoint, regulate, 
and execute, &c., under such " powers that be," as shall be 
suitable and selected ! What are we to suppose the author 
to mean ? Is it that the powers that be have no form, while 
yet they are by the supposition actually existing ; that until 
the form be selected by men, the *' powers that be " are 
^floating about somewhere in the nebular state. Or, taking 
the whole bearing of the sentence ; Is it that, in the Scrip- 
tures, there are rules laid down to regulate human conduct, 
BUT, (oh ! how this "but" spoils all,) but, these rules do not 
equally apply to the regulation of human conduct under the 
" powers that be :" that the " powers that be " are self-regu- 
lating and bow to no higher authority, when once they come 
into existence by divine appointment, and therefore to their 
enactments and regulations subjects must look, in ordering 



19 

their conduct, and to these alone. Such is the force of this 
important disjunctive " but "; and here again Dr. L. contra- 
dicts the acknowledged principle with which he set out. — • 
" Governments, as to their mode'' the Dr. proceeds, " do not 
form but follow the character and moral condition of the 
people, and are an indication of their condition intellectually 
and morally." What has this statement to do with the 
proposition at the head of this paragraph? Again; "the 
mode of government is the index and not the cause of the 
condition of the nations of the earth." Suppose this granted — 
though one is almost afraid to grant the preacher any thing, 
he blunders so often — and then as the people improve, the 
government should improve also : as enlightenment and 
civilization advance, — and Dr. L. will admit that these are 
best promoted by the spread of the gospel, and that the state 
of perfection to which human society may be brought has 
not yet been attained; — as these advance, there should be a 
progressive improvement in governments ; in the degree in 
which gospel light increases and spreads, to an equal extent 
should governments be benefitled, and elevate their standard 
of rule accordingly. It is when they do not do so, that they 
are overthrown and wrecked in the onward march of men. 
If, shutting their eyes upon the light, they walk in darkness, 
they are no index of an enlightened people, and the outbreaks 
at home and abroad Indicate too plainly, that governments 
must change, so as to conform to the requirements of the 
Bible and the wishes of christian people, to that " Supreme 
Law " w^hich is contained in the Word of God and delighted 
in by his gracious subjects. The change must come to pass, 
because God has pledged his word to that effect. " The na- 
tion and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish." — 
Is. ix : 12. " And the kingdom and dominion and the greatness 
of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to 
the people of the saints of the Most High— and all dominions 
^hall serve and ohey liim^ Dan. vii : 27. 



20 

Now, it must have occurred to the attentive reader of Dr. , 
Lord's sermon, that he has failed to explain how civil gov- 
ernment can be at the same time the ordinance of God — the 
burden of the first proposition — and the creation of the peo- 
ple — the burden of the second ; how these two conditions 
are compatible: how, just as we believe in the divine right 
of ecclesiastical rule, so we believe in the divine right 
of civil government, when the one and the other, the one an 
eclesiastical power, the other a civil, are in conformity with 
the pattern that is handed down to us. In agreement with 
*'the higher law,'' the requirements of the Bible, — does either 
become a divine institution ; it is then, and then only when 
conformed to this standard, that civil government can be 
called in an unqualified sense the ordinance of God ; in any 
form at variance with this, or when constituted independently 
of the "higher law," is it an abuse of the divine ordinance, 
it has the human stamp upon it, but not the divine ; it is an 
organization without the divine tvarrant, and, having this 
truth in his view. Dr. L. should have explained the words of 
his text, " Render unto Ca}sar the things that are Caesar's 
and unto God the things that are God's." 

When Dr. L. omits to state the character of governments? 

and speaks in general and unqualified terms, he departs from 

Scripture and slights its evident requirements. Let the Dr. 

tell, if his vague statements be true, why nations are visited 

for national sins, why kingdoms perish from off the face of 

earth ; why, if in any form, and in every, they are a " divine 

constitution " and " of perpetual obligation," it is predicted 

that they shall be overturned, and the kingdoms of this world 

become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. Rev. 

xi: 15. Surely, Dr. L. must know, when he grants "the 

powers that be " unlimited power and right "in all aff'airs 

which belong to the present life," from the mere fact of their 

existence, that such sentiments have long since been exploded 

by the advocates of Reformation, and are at variance \¥ith 



21 

the stubborn facts of the history of other kinj^doms and of 
this Constitution. It seems that he is altogether at fault in 
the matter, that as soo'. as he has abandoned the " Supreme 
Law" principle, he increases in error at every step ; that, as 
soon as he has got the governments constituted by this law 
in his theory, he abandons them to their fate, and yields up 
to them their subjects as mere passive agents. But, having 
first granted to civil government the breath of life, derived 
in its institution, from the Supreme, he should remember that 
it is dependent upon its author for every breath that it in- 
hales ; that the sarne law by which its right is secured at 
first — if, indeed, it be so secured — mnst be owned, obeyed, 
and honored constantly, else the right and moral power of 
civil rule are lost, its physical power alone may remain. It 
is a pity that Dr. L. had not kept by his acknowledged prin- 
ciple, that principle, if correct, should be followed out ; that 
law which is Supreme should have been exhibited to teach 
to rulers and to subjects their duty, and the Dr. proposed to 
speak of the duties of subjects at the outset. Why use that 
holy law in the commencement, which is of no further avail 
or obligation in the continuance of the human ordinance. 

In the third proposition, and two succeeding and explana- 
tory sentences, we should have the pith of the whole argu- 
ment, but again we are treated with incorrect and partial 
statements, proposed in a form so vague as to create suspi- 
cions regarding Dr. L.'s orthodoxy. 

" In regard to his own worship, and the manner in which 
we are to approach Him, the Supreme Governor has given 
full and minute directions." What has God done ? He has 
"given full and minute directions regarding himself, his at- 
tributes, and the great principles of his government, which 
eonstitute the doctrines of Christianity:' Is this all ? Is it so 
that Christianity is no more than Adam in innocence knew? 



22 

Adam certainly got directions regarding God, his attributes^ 
and the great principles of his government. Can this state- 
ment hold true concerning the God of all grace ? Is it sa 
that he, in this relation — which certainly comes within the 
doctrines of Christianity — has revealed to us the great prin- 
ciples of his government ? If so, then should we be able to 
state the reasons for the exercise of his sovereignty in the 
salvation of men; — if so, that God has revealed the " great 
principles of his government." why is it that it is written^ 
" Great is the mystery of godliness." What ideas of Christi- 
anity Dr. L. possesses, I. know not, but this I know, that he 
does not state fairly in this place the doctrines of the gospel, 
that the particulars which, he says constitute the doctrines 
of Christianity, would apply equally well to Theism as to 
Christianity, and that he does not even tell where God has re- 
vealed himself thus, whether in nature or in Scripture. 



Is it true that the doctrines of Christianity regard himself 
alone, and this is the natural conclusion from these words ; 
that " things that belong to Himself'^ are all that he has re- 
vealed. Has he done nothing more ? Besides telling us of 
the duties owed to himself, do not the Scriptures teach our 
duty to man ? Does not the Supreme Law consist of tiva 
tables, in the first, our dut}' to God is shown, and in tne second 
our duty to man. Now, would not these statements of Dr. 
L. lead us to believe that the doctrines of Christianity con- 
sists only of things that belong to himself; whereas is there 
not, in these same doctrines, a secondary prominence given 
to our duties to man ? Would Dr. L.'s words lead us to be- 
lieve that these doctrines of Christianity consist of both ? 
The least sabbath scholar in his congregation, that has 
learned the answer to third question in the Shorter Catechism 
can tell the sum of the doctrines of the Bible and of Chris- 
tianity. The Dr. is in duty bound to declare " the whole 
counsel of God," and surelv, he has not satisfied his own 



23 

conscience by such an inadequate representation of truth. 
Is it to serve a purpose, or in ignorance that he is led to 
speak so of the doctrines of Christianity ? 



" In things that belong to himself God exercises sole and 
absolute jurisdiction," continues Dr. L., leaving us without 
information as to whether God does or does not exercise sole 
and absolute jurisdiction in matters that relate to us.. Such 
half truths evidently lead to misconception regarding the 
divine law and its requirements. In those things that be- 
long to himself, and which Dr. L.* considers as constituting 
the doctrines of Christianity, " God has conferred upon no 

HUMAN authority THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE BY ADDING TO OR 

TAKING FROM THEM ;" and again, " he has, in regard to them, 
APPOINTED NO INFERIOR OR DELEGATED AUTHORITY." Now, in- 
terference, properly speaking, does not consist in adding to 
or taking from ; to do so would be moj^e than interference, 
it would be, on the one hand, the assumption of the Divine 
prerogative ; and, on the other, robbery. Interference is the 
insertion of somebody or something between Him who pos- 
sesses authority and his subjects: and such interference — 
the bringing in between — is sanctioned by God himself; 
not by adding to his law or by detracting from it, but by 
seeing it fulfilled, and embodying its requirements in the 
Constitution. Such a lawful and proper interference have 
moral governments, civil and ecclesiastical. As in things 
that belong immediately to man, so in things that belong 
directly to himself, God Jias appointed inferior and delegated 
authority. Dr. L. denies the latter and omits the former. 
Does Dr. L., a Presbyterian, affirm that in God's house he 
has no delegated rule ;— that there is no inferior and delega- 
ted authority in Sessions, P,resbyteries, and Synods ; and this 
in things that belong to God and his worship? If so, he de- 
stroys " all rule, all precedent, all right." If in things that 
belong to himself, there is no -delegated rule, then certainly 



24 

may we suppose, that in things belonging to men there is no 
such inferior authority. To this Dr. L.'s statements lead 
him, and where then is his divine constitution of govern- 
ment ? Perhaps he supposes " the powers that be " to be 
invested with authority by the Supreme Governor, while he 
denies to ecclesiastical communities, what the civil can 
boast to possess, namely, divine permission, appointment, 
and sanction ! 

The fourth proposition is of all the others the most unwar- 
ranted, and crowns the absurdity oi this discourse. Even 
the unlettered artizan, in reading this sentence, stops in as- 
tonishment; — "What does he mean"? "Surely this is 
wrong ?" Then, let every upright, honest man take warning 
and be assured it is wrong. Here is the sentence. " The 

DECISIONS OF GOVERNMENTS UPON MATTERS WITHIN THEIR JURIS- 
DICTION, THOUGH THEY MAY BE ERRONEOUS, ARE YET, FROM THE NE- 
CESSITY OF THE CASE, ABSOLUTE." Whcu an aunounccment 
militates against ruda common sense, it must either be im- 
properly stated, or intrinsically false. In reply to this state- 
ment and the observations that follow, a few remarks are 
necessary. 

First; Compare this proposition with the acknowledged 
principle, and see in what position Dr. L. places himself. 
At first he admits that the law of God is Supreme over hu- 
man enactments, but now he says that the decisions of gov- 
ernments in their appropriate jurisdiction — (which circum- 
scribed rule is by a former admission, under the control of 
the Supreme Lawgiver) — though they be erroneous, are 
absolute. But, they are in no sense absolute, if there is over 
them a higher law. No human enactment can be absolute, 
if it be true that God reigneth over nations ; to be prop- 
erly absolute, human enactments must be above appeal to 
any higher authority human or divine. They are not, then 



25 

truly absolute. Neither are they, when erroneous, morally 
binding ; for, if they be erroneous, it must be either by mili- 
tating against the Constitution, or by conflicting with the 
Supreme Law, and in either case, are they rendered nugato- 
ry. Error of the first kind must be speedily corrected, else 
the permanence of the civil authority is endangered by its 
folly ; but error of the second kind may be persisted in, 
while the Constitution neglects the Supreme law ; yet, dare 
any man affirm that disobedience to an improper statute is 
sinful ? Now Ur. L. is called upon to reconcile his two con- 
flicting statements ; to show how human enactments are to 
be conformed to the higher law to insure their validity ; and 
yet, that, though they be erroneous, they are from the neces- 
sity of the case, absolute. While the high, and holy, and just 
law^ of God is binding on States, and God reigneth among 
the nations, how can a decree be absolute 1 How can a hu- 
man enactment be binding on men, which is rendered null 
and void by being in contrariety with that Law which abi- 
deth ever and which all men are bound to obey 1 Will Dr. 
L. have the goodness to reconcile these two points to those 
who have heard or read this learned sermon ? In answer 
— (if we may venture to anticipate his reply) — the Dr. might 
state, that "the declaration of war and the making of peace, 
the regulating of commerce and levying of taxes " are irres- 
pective or this Supreme law ; — and these, as he alledges, are 
the most essential acts of government. One cannot see in 
what other w^ay he can get clear. To be independent of this 
Supreme law and so vested with absolute powxr, states 
must be engaged always in legislating in matters indifferent, 
in cases unconnected with morals. 

And here it may be remarked. Secondly; Matters civil 

AND RELIGIOUS ARE SO INTIMATELY CONNECTED, that, eVCU iu 

our natural relations we cannot discharge the incumbent 
moral duties as individuals and communities aright inde- 



26 

pendently of religion. Those things which are most essen- 
tial in acts of government are certainly those which concern 
morals ; and, it would be difficult indeed for Dr. L., with all 
his ingenuity, to show, that in these things, which he has 
mentioned as the most essential, the Supreme law has no 
concern. Wherever good and evil, right and wrong are 
implied, then we are in the region of moralit}^, and that re- 
lation or institution which is moral, is under the control of 
the Supreme, and amenable to his law. The Scripture, — 
the standard of morality — our guide in repgion, is the only 
unerring rule. If it be Dr. L.'s object to mystily, by the 
view presented of human enactments, he should not have 
admitted in the same sermon "the acknowledged principle"; 
but if it be his object, as a faithful Christian Minister, to 
state the nature and extent of civil jurisdiction, he has sig- 
nally failed ; — he has come short in the most essential fea- 
tures, that the "powers that be " are moral subjects, other- 
wise there is no apparent reason for the many references to 
them in God's Word ; and that, however anxious governments 
may be to avoid concern about morals and religion, they 
cannot, if they discharge their duty full}^, disregard them. 
Moral and religious matters are so inseparably interwoven 
wi.th civil, that in attempting to disannex — when there is no 
fixed line of demarkation — governments come short of dis- 
charging their legitimate duties in the extent of them ; — and 
so sin by omission. Now, it actually does occur, that au- 
thorities err in this respect very frequently, by neglecting the 
divine law, in regard, for instance, to the sabbath and the 
marriage relation and in various other ways : and thus in not 
attending to matters within their appropriate juristion, or in 
framing their laws contrary to the light of divine revelation, 
they err as manifestly as in transgressing their boundaries 
and assuming ecclesiastical rule. When their enactments 
are erroneous in either respect, they are not final and abso- 
lute ; — and when governments dishonor God by manifest 
omission or transgression, and thus act irrespective of the 



27 

Higher Law and in defiance of it,Christians owe them not the 
full and proper allegiance, in fact they sin in giving them 
active support. Now is there a hint about all this is Dr. L.'s 
sermon ? On the contrar}^ he deals with governments as if 
they had no higher directory than the light of nature ; — he 
treats of the Pagan Government of Rome, long since anni- 
hilated by the just judgment of God, and tacitly compares 
the American Constitution to it. The Roman Government 
stood in the way of the advancement of Christ's Kingdom, 
and Christians, as subjects, are warned not to disturb its 
peace ; but, are they enjoined to support it ? Dr. L. says so. 
They obeyed with all the freshness of first love, and all the 
strength of primitive faith, the injunctions of Christ; why then, 
when that old throne was threatened, did they not interpose 
and save its occupants from traitorous hands ? . That would 
have been to support the government. Christians, theit were 
soldiers in the army, and civilians, should have obeyed Christ's 
injunctioi;i in the fullest sense, and as they died in testifying 
to the faith, so should they have shed their blood in defence 
of that institution to which he payed tribute. Not so did it 
occur; they merely owned "for wrath's sake" a power 
which they might not resist, and they doubtless, rejoiced in 
its overthrow. Thus the passages quoted from Scripture 
enjoined that patient and peaceable deportment which be- 
come the profession of Christ, under the existing government, 
while the general langua^ge used applies to all times and all 
governments, and shows the true character of the ordinance 
and the proper obedience that is due when the time shall 
come that God shall be glorified in his own institution. 



Have we risen no higher in the scale of moral character 
than these old forms ? There has been a great change, and, 
in some respects, a happy change, from the imperial and 
monarchical to the democratic ; but is there that deference 
and honor paid to the Supreme Law which ought to chSrac- 



28 

t^rize a government in these last days. Would that the 
American government, w^hich boasts of its freedom and 
that it is in the van of enlightenment, could boast likewise 
that it acknowleges and embodies in its administrations that 
supreme rule of rectitude which alone can give stability to its 
power, then should the striped and starred banner be the true 
emblem of liberty, without that deep stain to which men of 
other nations point in scorn, as the flag flutters in the breeze ! 

Dr. L. does not preach as if he wished to be instrumental 
in effecting this consummation so devoutly to be wished for, or 
sought to elevate the character of the Constitution, which he 
would uphold in its iniquit}^ " The promised and predicted 
day when tumults and opressions shall cease" has no meaning 
for him ; indeed he does not believe that God will fulfil his 
promise, for he states that " the Gospel does not propose an 
equalization o^ human conditions in time," that is, at leasts 
that oppressions will not cease. Oh ! but God says they will, 
and every Christian delights to contemplate that future day ; 
there is a music in the sublime description that finds a re- 
sponse in every feeling heart — " They shall not hurt nor 
destroy in all my holy mountain ; for the earth shall be full 
of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." 
—Is. xi. 9. 



Thirdly, We may remark that the right of private judg- 
ment is viewed in an improper light under this fourth pro- 
position. While the right is in some measure conceded, it 
is then asked — " Is this a just ground of forcible resistance ?" 
Now violent resistance is not dreamed of by sane men, that 
do not suffer from the enactment. Those who are placed 
" under circumstances of aggravated oppression " are the 
slaves. The warnings delivered to guard against an out- 
break are almost useless to the men of the North. Instead 
of deterring his hearers from revolt. Dr. L. might have better 



29 

discharged his trust in the sight of God, by pointing out 
such measures as may be necessary in order to disencumber 
the State of the monstrous evil ; and thus would he have 
won the plaudits of right-hearted Christians of every creed 
and every name, and enforced upon the community the pre- 
cepts of the Prince of Peace. Putting away, then, as un- 
called for, this blustering about lawless resistance, let us 
understand about the right of private judgment, which be- 
longs to citizens, in relation to the Fugitive Slave Law. If 
we understand Dr. L. aright, he says, a man has a right to 
test [the constitutionality of any law by an appeal to the 
judiciary ; that is, by appealing to the executive court and 
its officers, who are by oath bound to administer that law, 
or to the framers of that law ; these again, in the court of 
justice, bring the questionable law to the test of the consti- 
tutional law and first principles. And here again Dr. L. 
abandons his acknowledged princip le the test, we think, is 
a law above every human law. AH human laws are to be 
tested by the divine law, which is superior to them, as w^ell as 
by themselves or by the Constitution. If there be no higher 
law than the first principles of the Constitution, we may 
never get quit of slavery 



Having introduced the higher law to serve his purpose, 
he now dismisses it unceremoniously. " Let us not talk," 
says he, " of a higher law, which absolves men from obedi- 
ence to a Constitution which they have sworn to maintain ; 
if there be a higher law, it is the law of resistance and revo- 
lution." Who gave this higher lavv^ of resistance, if there 
be such ? Where shall we find it ? Is it, think you, Dr. L., 
in the higher law of the Bible, which you warn your hearers 
not to mention ? Have not all lawful revolutions originated 
from the right of private judgment, founded upon the decla- 
rations of Scripture, or the natural dictates of conscience, 
where the light of nature was the only guide ? 



30 

According to Dr. L., a man has a right to freedom of 
opinion, but no right to act upon it against the authority of 
the State ; for if every man were allowed to do that which 
is right in his own eyes, no statute could be executed. Even 
courts of justice may form erroneous conclusions, but their 
decision is final, from the same necessity. A man may err, 
courts may err in their decisions ; the judgment of the indi- 
vidual and of courts may be perverted. This is all very 
true ; but the abuse, misuse, or imperfection of the judgment 
is not to be made the ground of forbidding its proper use. 
Thus the examples quoted are unfair ; the case of the inno- 
cent man suffering the* penalty of the law wrongfully is 
uncommon, and proves that " extreme law is sometimes ex- 
treme injustice ;" the case of the Quaker, who considers all 
wars unlawful, is likewise extreme, and is opposed to the 
word of God and right reason, while it interferes but little 
with the legislation of States. If the case of the Friend 
should deter men from setting up and acting upon their pri- 
vate opinions against the declarations of State in regard to 
slavery, then, by a parity of reasoning, the case of the court 
putting the- innocent man to death should deter courts from 
putting into execution the extreme penalty of the law, even 
when their judgment may be right. 



But while private judgment is of great use, freedom of 
opinion and freedom of action are incompatible ; freedom of 
opinion may be abused, and the consequent action unjusti- 
fiable on that ground. This is at once admitted. With the 
right of private judgment no man may interfere, but there 
is a limit to freedom of action. A man and a nation have 
no right, to act in contrariety/ to the law of G-od ; the limit in 
the case of the nation to command obedience, and in the case 
of the individual to act upon his private opinion, is the same 
unerring rule. Now the case before us seems to be this : a 
large proportion of the people of the United ;?tates considers 



31 

slavery to conflict with "the Higher Law," and wish it 
removed from the institutions of the country ; and they have 
the Bible, and conscience, and reason on their side. They 
are free to hold their private opinion ; yea, to agitate ; and 
more, they are free. in- the sight of the God of mercy to re- 
fuse obedience to the Slave Law; violent resistance is 
uncalled for. "Be still, Americans," Dr. Lord would say; 
" entertain what opinions you please, resist not the govern- 
ment that is in error : it is wrong for you to indulge your 
delicate, sensitive consciences ; very distressing things they 
are, and I pity you, poor mistaken persons ; but, believe me, 
it is wrong for you not to support the State in its iniquity — 
you must obey man rather than God ! !" 

But Dr. L. seems to anticipate whither he is carried by 
his remarks. " It may he replied to this, he supposes the 
cavil himself — " You re-affirm the old doctrine of tyrants, 

OF PASSIVE obedience AND NON-RESISTANCE ; YOUR POSITION WOULD 
RENDER ALL REVOLUTIONS UNLAWFUL, ALL CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT 
IMPOSSIBLE." To THIS IT MAY BE SAID THAT IT DOES NOT BELONG 

TO THE Church in her organized capacity, nor to Christians, 

CONSIDERED SOLTJLY AS SUCH, AND WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR RE- 
LIGIOUS DUTIES, TO REVOLUTIONIZE GOVERNMENTS." This is UO 

direct answer, it is mere shuffling. If it does not become 
men as Christians to disobey, and, if necessar}^, to revolu- 
tionize, does it become them at all ? If among their re- 
ligious duties their duties as subjects are proposed, this looks 
like as if they should be Christian subjects ; and if they con- 
tinue such till the moment of revolt, a.re they stripped of their 
noblest character in the act? " Presbyterians stood to a man 
with the patriots, who, under God, achieved the independence 
of our beloved country." Presbyterians, then, were engaged 
in a revolution, but it did not become them as Christians to 
be thus engaged ! If it did not become them as Christians 
it did not become them as men. The Presbyterians of Scot- 



32 

land and Puritans of England, were the founders of English 
Liberty. They held the right of private judgment, and that 
led them to action, and their actions have told gloriously 
upon succeeding generations. They considered themselves 
to be performing " a religious duty,'' in pursuing the course 
which they adopted ; it is to their religion — to their Christi- 
anity — that posterity is indebted for unspeakable privileges 
and enlarged opinions. Is Chistianity to be robbed of the 
honor of such mighty deeds ; and the influence of Bible prin- 
ciples upon men of former years to be thus sacrilegiously 
disowned ? " The Gospel is silent on this subject !" Nay ; 
it has spoken loudly, and it speaketh yet ominously, not by 
directing to plans of revolt, or times to crush oppressors, but 
by furnishing us with examples, and warnings, and lessons 
of wisdom to subjects and to rulers. "The people have a 
right to revolutionize," Dr. L. concedes. Have they, indeed ? 
Where are the Christians now ? Are Christians merged into 
the people ? Have they lost their distinctiveness when occu- 
pied in matters of government and changes of form? Or 
have the people a right to do that which does not become 
Christians ? 

Does a man, when he goes to the jury-box, or the voting- 
house, or to the Senate, or when he takes up arms in defence 
of his rights, lay aside his Christian character? Does it not 
become him in every such situation to act as a Christian, 
and consider himself performing a religious duty ? What 
does Dr. L. mean ? The answer which he makes to the self- 
imposed charge of re-affirming "the old doctrine of tyrants," 
tends still more to convince us of his criminality. Alas ! 
that even an approach should be made to the exploded doc- 
trine of " passive obedience and non-resistance," by an 
American minister ; that Presbyterians should know no bet- 
ter than to append their names to such a pamphlet. It should 
make them blush to hear such sentiments avowed in this 
age and in this country. Christianity is ashamed of such a 



S3 

defender, and robbed of some of the laurels that it has so 
nobly won. Truths are set at naught which have cost men 
their blood, — those principles, in defence of which they 
sacrificed their lives, buried beneath a heap of absurdities. 



It remains to be observed, tastlt/, regarding this whole ar- 
gument—if argument it may be called — that Dr. L. weakens 
the force of his reasoning by what follows. Would not the 
reader, at this stage of the discourse, suppose the applica- 
tion of the preceding principles to be this : Enactments of 
Congress, though erroneous, must be obeyed | therefore the 
Fugitive Slave Law must be obeyed, though erroneous. To 
have quitted the field thus, would have been, in our opinion, 
more creditable to Dr. L.'s reputation as a logician, than to 
have continued there. Now what does he do ? In the con- 
clusion of his Sermon, he labors, most ridiculously, to prove 
that Slavery is not per se sinful ,or ;^ wrong ; thus making 
it appear that he has been bringing us thus far in the body of 
bis discourse for no end. What is the force of the fourth 
proposition, if now it is to be seen that Slavery is, per se^ 
right ? for if it be not wrong, it must be right. Either he 
bethinks himself that he has gone too far and must retrieve 
himself somehow, or he means to impress upon his hearers, 
that, whether Slavery be right or wrong, the Fugitive Slave 
Law must be obeyed ; — in either case, the conclusion of his 
Sermon proves better than the most labored review, that the 
force of his four propositions is very questionable ; and that 
if the latter part were put first, nobody would care for the 
remainder ; or rather, the one part completely neutralizes 
the effect of the other. 

The view of Dr. L. regarding Slavery must not be passed 
over ; it is as improper as his remarks upon magistracy. 
" War and Slavery are evils incident to the fallen condition 
of our race, the existence of which is to be regretted," (a^ 



34 

therefore, if "possible, to he avoided and done away,) " but 
which are necessarily, in the actual condition of mankind^ 
the appropriate subjects of State regulation." That is, of 
two evils we are to choose the lea^t ; and if we cannot avoid 
War and Slavery, we are to legislate accordingly. Now, if 
we can avoid what is to be regretted, wc must, in the end, 
regret that we did not jjivoid it. If we can, by any lawful 
means, do .away with Slavery, w^e should not for a moment 
uphold it ; we do what is to be lamented ; we are committing 
sin. Slavery, '' as a punishment for crime, or as a method 
for disposing of prisoners taken in war," is lawful, and 
{sometimes) benefits the captive. This is true ; but this is 
not the kind of slavery in America. " In certain conditions 
of society slavery is universal ;" true also ; but in the present 
state of this country, the oppression of a foreign people- 
stolen from their home, — not taken in war, and the making 
of this a permanent institution, finds no counterpart in the 
annals of Slavery. 

Again ; " Domestic Slavery was expressly allowed, sanc- 
tioned, and regulated by the Supreme Lawgiver, in that 
divine economy which he gave the Hebrew State." If the 
word "sanctioned" were left out, we could subscribe the 
sentence ; but if " sanctioned " have any meaning peculiar 
to itself, above ''regulated," — it implies that wherever circum- 
stances permit, we should conform : that God has authorized 
and commanded us to have slaves, — and that we are wrong 
if we do not have them, when we need them. Thus the men 
of the North are wrong, and those States that have liberated 
their slaves are wrong, and the sooner they return to slavery 
the better, for God has sanctioned it ! ! 

And again ; " Honest, brut mistaken persons," (how thank- 
ful should such be to the Doctor for his aftectionate warning !) 
" should remember that if the institution of slavery is neces- 



35 

sarily, and from its nature sinful now, it must always have 
been so." It was not sinful in the Israelites to be instrumen- 
tal in God's hand in executing judgment upon other people ; 
and this punitive " institution " of slavery is no more " an 
impeachment of the divine benevolence." than is the eternal 
punishment of man for transgression ; because both are de- 
served : but it is sinful for any one portion of the human 
family to lord it over another, and by taking up God's quarrel 
with a nation, to execute judgment upon it without His ex- 
press COMMAND. This the Hebrews had ; but the argument 
will not do, that it is not sinful for another nation to hold 
slaves because God allowed the Jews to hold men in bond- 
age for their punishment and benefit. To give the example 
of the Hebrew State on this matter is very injudicious. For, 
firsts it is to be remembered that the state of things in regard 
to civil relations is widely different now, from what it was 
then. The position of the Hebrews among the nations of 
the earth is widely diiierent from that of any Gentile 
nation then and now. Secondly, Their civil position and re- 
lation was typical ; like their religious observances in char- 
acter and emblem, was their civil constitution ; and Thirdly, 
every action competent to them, when they became a nation 
among other nations, excepting wherein it was moral, was 
competent to them, and to them only, by the express com- 
mand of God. The reader may consult Matt. Henry's Com- 
mentary on Lev. xxv. 26. The proposing of rules regarding 
slavery among the Hebrews, does not prove that slavery was 
sanctioned as well as regulated by the Lawgiver ; it certainly 
seems te be making too free with the Divine character, to say 
that he sanctioned, under the Old Testament, what Christ's 
words in the New disapprove of. Yfe should seek rather to - 
reconcile the two, and thus leave the infidel no room to 
allege that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of 
the New. Scott, the commentator, remarks, on Exod. xxi. 2, 
*' Slavery was almost universal in the world, and though, 
like war??, it always proceeded of evil, and was evil in itself, 



yet the wisdom of God deemed it better to regulate than to 
prohibit it. We would not, however, judge of the practice 
itself by these judicial regulations^ but by the law of love. 
Slavery, like war, may, in some cases, in the present state of 
things be lawful, for the crime which forfeits life, no doubt 
forfeits liberty, and it is not inconsistent with the moral law, 
for a criminal to be sold and treated as a slave, during a 
term of time proportioned to his ojfence. In any other cases, 
if not in all, it must be inconsistent with the law cf love.^^ 
And on Lev. xxv. 46 — " The Israelites were permitted to keep 
slaves of other nations, perhaps in order to typify that none 
but the true Israel of God participate of that liberty where- 
with Christ has made his people free. But it was allowed^ 
in order that in this manner the Gentiles might become acr 
quainted with the true religion; and when the Israelites 
copied the example of their progenitors, there can be no 
reasonable doubt that it was over-ruled to the eternal sal- 
vation of many souls. It does not, however, appear, from 
the subsequent history, that the people availed themselves of 
this allowance to an}^ great extent, for we read but little of 
slaves from anjong the Gentiles preserved by them." 

Thus it seem!5,that the divine purpose to punish by slavery 
the descendants of Canaan, does not cleanse our hands from 
the stain of their blood, when we know that is written, " He 
that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his 
hands, he shall surely be put to death," arid that " God hath 
made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the 
face of the earth ;" any more than the divine purpose that, till 
the millenium, the Jews shall be "wanderers among the 
* nations," exculpates those that oppress them, by casting them 
out. [f, then, it be wrong to enslave, or possess slaves, it is 
likewise wrong to deliver up the fugitive ; on this point we 
have " the higher law " warning us : " Thou shalt not deliver 
unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master 
unto thee." 



37 

The antiquity of slavery, and its recognition by the Con- 
stitution, is pleaded as a reason why we should respect it. 
How futile this appeal ! What is sinful, because it is time- 
worn and in the Constitution, must be respected ! It is evident 
that such preaching is worse than vain. Between love for the 
Constitution, and the desire not to support it, if manifestly in 
error, Dr. L. and many worihy men, are divided. The truth 
mi:st be felt sometime, and be acted upon, (for conscience will 
not always slumber at its post ) that the evil lies in the Con- 
stitution, and though men idolize it, and Xvj to screen its de- 
fects, the paint and varnish, so plenteously used, will only 
serve at length to make them more apparent. Better far to 
admit at once that this compromise in the Constitution is 
tvrong, and that citizens must not sin by letting it remain so, 
but by all open, honorable means, seek to rectify it, — to dis- 
encumber it of slavery, — and watch and pray till the day of 
redemption cometh and it be said to the prisoner, " Go forth ;" 
to the captive, " You are free." 



" The observance of the compact falls within the moral 
rule of good faith." No—not of the compact ; but this is the 
question to be answered ■: Whether it is better to break a 
bad bargain„ or to adhere to it ? If it be to our hurt, and to 
ours onl}^, it is generally better to keep to it ; but if it be 
hurtful to others, dishonoring to God, a burden on our con- 
science, and contrary to the higher law, reason teaches that 
it is better to break it. In so doing we do more credit to our 
integrity, and morality, and Christianity, than by disguising 
the secret sin, and preserving our misnamed honor. Let this 
be applied to the Constitution. Our honor in regard to it is 
to be best preserved by honoring God. '* Fear God, honor the 
King." " Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and 
unto God the things that are God's ;" this last command of 
the text comes first in point of importance. Honor God ; 
this above all, and in the face of all opposition ; and it can 



38 

only be when the text is properly acted upon, that we shall 
have " the calm sea," and •' the law-abiding crew," and " the 
flag of the union " securely " nailed to the mast." 

'• O iiavis ! referunt in mare te novi 

Fluctus, O quid agunt ?" 

For all the oil thrown upon the troubled waters by Dr. L., 
and others, the ship of state is still in the storm, and the wat- 
ers will rage, and the winds threaten the ship, until the God 
of storms be appeased by casting out of the vessel, as soon 
as possible, the luckless freight. ^ 

'• The plea of sympathy," Dr. L. writes, " with the colored 
race, however suitable such sympathy may be, and demanded 
by Him, who hath made of one blood all nations and races 
to dwell together on the face of the earth, will never avail 
to justify an agitation which is useless to them and ruinous 
to us." That is ; though God demands this, his requirement 
cannot justify agitation. His requirement is rendered of no 
teffect by a human enactment — which is in itself nugatory ! ! 
Is it come to this, that a Christian Minister dare avow such 
a sentiment ? The agitation is neither useless to them nor 
ruinous to he governmen!:, but will prove henificial to both, if 
men, as bold as Dr. L., would have the manliness to step 
forward and propose the emendatory measures. Is there no 
pity in Dr. L.'s breast for the degraded slave, when he pub- 
lishes such sentiments, no spark of humanity, no commisera- 
tion for those that pine in captivity and languish for freedom, 
that have ai good a right as their masters to a free place on 
God's earth r>nd in God's house ? Oh ! how it sullies the 
name of Christian, and disgraces gospel principles, and ele- 
vates the Satanic pride of the infidel, to hear such sentiments 
avowed by an ambassg,dor of Christ, 

Compare the last quoted sentence with one other, and we 
tiave done : ** The colored race are just as capable of eleva- 



31? 

tion as the white, if they can be made to possess the same- 
advantages." Then at whatever cost does it become states, 
pretending to be Christian, to let them have those advanta- 
ges and that speedily. Who dare forbid what God demands ? 
Sympathy ; active and benevolent as the sympathy of Jesus. 
In the name of all that is divine, and all that is God-like in 
hmnanity, let the evil be remedied. Arise, oh Lord I and 
plead thine own cause 1 



f^ A 



IIIJ 







v^.^. \. / "- 






^^^' 




°o 



•^o V* : 



,0- 



"<* 





I* «V 













>p% 







" ^ • <^ 



rf ■: 

\ 

•» o 






-e^ A^f^^^ 't^^ ^ .^.^>^,^•o ^^ .,^ 



i^ 






.'^'J^, 







^/^•. ^ 




■,.V|||I WERT 

"<*'•% U BOOKBINDING 



